guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Effective warrior guide
this has been needed for a while. --Honorable Sarah 15:03, 3 May 2006 (CDT) :You might notice how I (started) a complete rewrite of the Effective monk guide. That is because I feel the guide was written way to much in the stile of a build article as opposed to a guide. I wont do so here (because the monk guide is enough work for me & I know most about monks), but I feel the same critizism is valid here as well. --Xeeron 06:58, 11 May 2006 (CDT) ::I think both articles have a patronizing tone and are more akin to "how I think warriors should be played" rather than "effective ways to use a warrior". Reads like propaganda. Seventy.twenty.x.x 14:35, 11 May 2006 (CDT) todo # fix the tables # expand the advantages/disavantages bit # pictures # write the other 7''' articles in this set.... #Suggueted Strategies section: ##Add that dolyak signet+watch yourself are awesome =) Skuld 16:50, 3 May 2006 (CDT) done --Honorable Sarah 12:47, 5 May 2006 (CDT) # Talk about warrior '''weaknesses and how to mitigate them (e.g. condition removal - best with Plague Touch or a monk skill, but something like Signet of Malice or Antidote Signet will do in a pinch) — 130.58 (talk) (01:04, 14 May 2006 (CDT)) # Throw in some notes (or at least a link) about successful pulling and managing aggro, since that's your job in PVE. — 130.58 (talk) (01:04, 14 May 2006 (CDT)) # Add an actual strategy section. Include PvE (like mentioned above) and PvP combos, spiking, coordination, calling and all the others. --Nilles 05:06, 23 May 2006 (CDT) :In my experience you can't go wrong with Dolyak Signet, "Watch Yourself!", Flurry and Sprint being on your bar at all times Skuld 16:53, 3 May 2006 (CDT) ::I've never found Flurry to be truly worthwhile. Something like "For Great Justice!" is a better adrenaline builder, in my opinion, and it lets you throw in other stances for extra offense, defense, or additional energy/adrenaline management. If you're going to pack Sprint in your skill bar, Frenzy is actually a much, much better choice than Flurry, anyway: you get significantly more net damage (since there's no damage penalty) and less energy loss (due to the longer duration), but you don't have to worry about the penalty very much because you can just activate Sprint whenever you are getting attacked. — 130.58 (talk) (05:02, 20 May 2006 (CDT)) :::Well, bring a protection monk with Protective Spirit and the damage issue is resolved. --Nilles 05:33, 23 May 2006 (CDT) About Eviscerate damage. I've never seen a number over about 90 when using this skill, and that's with 16/13 Axe/Strength. If the 200+ damage number is including the deep wound, that should be mentioned. LordKestrel 09:26, 7 May 2006 (CDT) :Well, if your target is lower in level or has only little armor, those numbers do show up. --Nilles 05:33, 23 May 2006 (CDT) Incarnadine Made some needed capitalization and minor editing changed. I have some problems with the claims of 200+ damage with an axe and Eviscerate. I'm sure against lower AL targets, perhaps, but reasonably? As well, some of the "advantages" seem kind of... lame, really. Sword skins are an advantage? The FDS and IDS aren't all that great - IDS moreso because of the 15^50 mod, but honestly, that's kind of a poor inclusion as an "advantage". I'm not that comfortable completely rewriting this, but I've made changes that I think help out. Some of the factual claims need to be substantiated - for example, the claim that "At 11 Axe Mastery, an axe will deal more damage, due to critical hit rate, then an equivalent sword at 11 Swordsmanship". Why is this true, if it is? Incarnadine 8:10am, 13 May 2006 (EST) :I was just about to ask that myself. Has it been verified somehow? I can't exactly say I'll trust it if it hasn't, seeing as ANet values game balance. I believe both swords and axes have the same success of inflicting a critical hit with 11 points spent in their respective attributes. — Galil 15:34, 20 June 2006 (CDT) ::Since the crit rates are the same for any weapon mastery, only the base damage should matter in determining the average damage output. I don't actually understand what the guide is trying to say there. Actually, assuming an equal distribution of base damage score (15-22 and 6-28), sword damage is higher (18.5) than axe (17). --Nilles 16:13, 20 June 2006 (CDT) :::Keep in mind when a weapon critical hits, it uses the max damage (28 in the case of Axe versus 22 in the case of Sword). - Greven 16:36, 20 June 2006 (CDT) ::::my point was about average damage per second. an axe warrior does more average damage per second then a sword warrior of the same weapon mastery, because they are both getting the same percentage of criticals, but the axe criticals are heavier. ::::there are two factors at work when determining the base damage of any particular attack. one is the damage the other is the critical hit rate if int(RND+(.01+(0.0144*Attributeweapon)+(.01*AttributeCritical Strikes)) then Damagebase=Uboundweapon else Damagebase=int(RND*(Uboundweapon-Lboundweapon))+Uboundweapon fi ::::i'll mess around in calc and see if i can export a chart for you. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 17:14, 20 June 2006 (CDT) :::::I get your point, Sarah. Due to the critical hit calculation, the axe will eventually outdamage the sword, provided you just fight long enough to score enough crits. edit Average at 11 weapon mastery for 6 hits (5 norm +1 crit) are therefore 124,5 damage (axe) and 123,6 damage (sword), right? --Nilles 05:17, 21 June 2006 (CDT) anon edits of recent flavor User_talk:71.213.45.102 made some good changes and some bad changes. frenzy is NOT a good skill. double damage = twice the work for the monk. Cyclone axe is powerful, esp since they expanded the range. i'd hate to do this, esp since the recent problems with reverts, but unless he can come defend those edits, i'll move them back. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 23:40, 20 June 2006 (CDT) :Frenzy, is however, a relatively great skill in PvP. The note mentions that it is used greatly in PvP, and I do not disagree with this because it is entirely true. The vast majority of Warriors carry Frenzy in PvP (check out observer mode and you can easily see this). Further, the addition mentions carrying Sprint to cancel Frenzy if you begin to take damage. These are sound and good tips, so I must disagree with your assertion that Frenzy is not a good skill. It may not be a good PvE skill the vast majority of the time, but it is an excellent PvP skill specifically in Guild versus Guild battles. - Greven 23:58, 20 June 2006 (CDT) ::i conceed your every point, but this is a PvE focused guild. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 00:03, 21 June 2006 (CDT) :::Nowhere does the guide say that it is exclusive to PvE, or even focused on that. Cyclone Axe is not the most damaging AoE Warrior attack, as Crude Swing deals more damage. Granted it has its own drawbacks, but the claim about Cyclone Axe being the most powerful was inaccurate and so I removed it. --Empyrean 21:15, 21 June 2006 {MST} ::::let's compare: Crude Swing Pro: high +damage, Con: easily interupted Hundred Blades Pro: double attack, Con: elite, no +damage Triple Chop Pro: very high +damage, Con: elite, long recycle Cyclone Axe Pro: ok +damage, Con: ...taking sugguestions? ::::as for PvE/PvP: you are right, it doesn't. i should have mentioned that when i wrote it. i'll be correcting that tomarrow am. --Honorable Sarah image:Honorable_Icon.gif 00:29, 23 June 2006 (CDT) :::::You've said "Guild" enough times that I'm wondering if you're actually not talking about a guide. Is this just a recurring typo, or are we not even on the same page here? If cyclone axe were just listed as being a reliable non-elite AoE attack, I wouldn't have changed anything. But it is not the most powerful, considering that the attack itself deals less additional damage than Crude Swing and the base damage for the associated weapon is lower. As for a PvE focus, if you'd like to make a PvE guide then we should either have a seperate article for effective PvE and PvP Warriors, or we should just make a mention of the differences between effective warrior use in PvE and PvP under the same article. Since the existing article is simply an "effective warrior guide" it doesn't make sense to me for it to be only a discussion of PvE. I think having a seperate article for PvE and PvP strategy would be quite redundant, so we should just make mention of the effective strategies for both PvE and PvP play within the same article.--Empyrean 01:51, 23 June 2006 (MST) Split the guide(s) Trying to make an article that deals with both PvE and PvP warrior playing styles is, in a single word, retarded. The original intent of the article was for PvE warriors, and just adding random PvP facts here and there does not solve anything. I recommend either having two parts to the article (PvE and PvP) or just creating two separate articles. (This also applies to the other articles; I'm just concerned with warriors atm.) This article as is does not "provide guidance for experienced characters playing new warriors or experience (sic) warriors looking for additional options." It's a basic warrior guide, and an incomplete one at that. Things that should be changed at the bare minimum (along with splitting the guide): *Attribute levels setup *A full-fledged armor guide *Typical equipment setup *Weapon swapping *Shields *Stances *Adrenaline skills (it warrants a section by itself) *Remove the advantages/disadvantages tables and write paragraphs instead *Different playstyles: soloing, defensive PvE warrior, offensive PvE warrior, Arenas warrior, HA warrior, GvG warrior *Remove "Suggested skills" and add "Suggested builds" The guide has the potential to actually become useful, but right now I can't see why I'd recommend anyone to read it. -Savio 17:09, 4 October 2006 (CDT) :Well, there could be 2 different parts in the article (heading PvE Warriors/PvP Warriors), like in the monk guide. This is also much less detailed than the monk guide. Go ahead and add stuff. --Xeeron 04:33, 5 October 2006 (CDT) Armor suggestions = meh. *Warrior's Endurance has a cap on energy gain and gives back energy very quickly, so having extra +energy really isn't a big deal. *Associating weapon-specific runes with gauntlets is a bad idea: Shock, Bull's Strike, Shield Bash, "Coward!, "None Shall Pass!" and similar skills give any warrior good KD potential, regardless of the weapon used. Better to associate the weapon-specific runes with another slot, perhaps? *Superior Vigor costs a lot. You want it in a slot that never gets traded out, ideally. I realize that this isn't a terrible setup, but if we're giving people a foolproof scheme to work with, we need it to be more, well, foolproof. This one requires too much tweaking for special cases. I'm not quite sure how to modify it to make it general with minimal investment, but this scheme isn't *quite* there yet. — 130.58 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2006 (CDT) yo i got a question "Few energy-based axe attacks are available." why is this a downside for axes also would any of you guys mind if i junked about 80% of that article (the pve shit) and actually wrote a good guide to using warriors 64.251.141.172 01:53, 21 October 2006 (CDT) :I was considering doing it, but something called real life got in my way. A lot of the upsides and downsides are pretty irrelevant. Also, capitalization and punctuation would help. - [[User:Savio|''Savio'']] 02:32, 21 October 2006 (CDT) Wow, this is the worst guide ever...someone should probably put it out of its misery. I edited a couple things, just so they made more sense, I think. I hope nobody reverts it. Is the guide supposedly to be intentionally bad, for some sneaky reason or something? X) Anyway, hopefully someone will just delete all this and rewrite it. Also, should the guide always use skills from every campaign? Surely anyone who's following this won't actually have played factions. God, that's a scary thought. I suck at this and I'm sorry, but I suspect that people actually read and follow this guide, and it scares the hell out of me.Martialis 12:48, 30 November 2006 (CST) A Very Slight Improvement It says in the rules that I'm supposed to write something here. (It also says you aren't supposed to revert more than once, so please don't.) The note in this guide says that it is a guide for warriors in pve (intended for the kind of people who would read and follow this guide). Please don't fuck it up again. I did list frenzy, once, and I don't think it should be listed more than once. I deleted the previous note about frenzy, in a small attempt to reduce the number of frenzying warriors in pve. It makes sense to delete this one, too. I think what I wrote is correct, and that would be obvious from the skill descriptions, as well as using them, in pve... What else am I supposed to write here? I think that's it. :Individual people aren't supposed to revert more than once. Statements like "X is the best" and "never use Y" are not helpful. This is only compounded by the fact there wasn't even an attempt to back those statements up (monsters don't start beating on a warrior when he uses frenzy). --Fyren 03:32, 6 December 2006 (CST) Therefore groups of people can revert as many times as they want. Begging doesn't work, and I don't know what else to do. Telling people which skills are best is perfectly helpful, and monsters do start beating on a warrior, which I implied by the note and the previous comment. It's a guide to being effective, not retarded. I hope I haven't wasted my time. :Martialis, I suggest if you want to rewrite the whole guide (or a large part of it) you produce a new article in your namespace, i.e. User:Martialis/Warrior guide suggestion or something, and write everything there, and allow other users to help improve it. Making incremental changes to this article will probably end up with a lot of reversions. If you produce a separate article it would be possible to either replace all or some of this article with your suggestions, depending on people's opinions. :Although please bear in mind that you this article will have to cater for both PvE and PvP players. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:42, 6 December 2006 (CST) ::That isn't a good idea imo, the 2 roles are completely different — Skuld 15:51, 6 December 2006 (CST)